Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Farsightedness
#16
Hello again Otis,
  Thank you again for sharing your info. Do you have any web sites that you could direct me to that would address the subject matter that I ask about?
    Another question is. You had said that it sounds as though I am over corrected in the new glasses, because I can see better than 20/20 with them. However I have to hold near work about 8 inches away when my eyes are tired, and about 10  when they are not. So I am thinking that the optometrist has me corrected in the middle . A bit too strong for distance, and a bit to weak for near.
  Near vision without the glasses, VERY blurred at any distance.
  I'm thinking to get a pair of minus 2 glasses, with no cyl. and see if I can wear these for therapy, and work my way back to 20/20.
Reply
#17
  Two more questions. Iseem to remember reading that the best vision with glasses is thru glass lenses, with flat front base curves.  Any one know about this?
Reply
#18
Dear Bifocal,

Subject:  Vision -- over 45.  It is an ill wind that does not blow some good.


  Thank you again for sharing your info. Do you have any web sites that you could direct me to that would address the subject matter that I ask about?

Not to be "coy" but it depends on the context of your questions.  But I would suggest my site:

<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.myopiafree.com">http://www.myopiafree.com</a><!-- w -->

Directed at young pilots (who are no deeper than 20/70) who will do the work of plus-clearing.  But that would be a start for any second-opinion person (who would like to expand the Bates concept).  Indeed, it is my belief that ONLY BATES people will untlimately develop a "working" preventive method.


    Another question is. You had said that it sounds as though I am over corrected in the new glasses, because I can see better than 20/20 with them.

Otis>  That is correct.  A minus is good to check your retina -- to verify that you can descriminate 20/15.  A good test.  But, if my Snellen were 20/50 or better (pass the DMV) I personally would NEVER wear that minus.  Or, would keep a weak minus for driving a car at night (just practical).  I think they are proven to be dangerous.


However I have to hold near work about 8 inches away when my eyes are tired, and about 10  when they are not. So I am thinking that the optometrist has me corrected in the middle . A bit too strong for distance, and a bit to weak for near.

Otis>  ODs make compromises also.  It is just that you understand them.  At age 64 you will have lost a lot of "accommodation".  If your refractive state is -1.5 diopters -- then you can read with no lens at all.  That is the "blessing" of being SLIGHTLY nearsighed.  At your age you get the choice of clear distant vision (but slight blur at near) or clear near vision -- and slight blur at distance. 


  Near vision without the glasses, VERY blurred at any distance.

Otis>  Then you are more nearsighed that I thought.


  I'm thinking to get a pair of minus 2 glasses, with no cyl. and see if I can wear these for therapy, and work my way back to 20/20.


Otis> Let me suggest something.  Go to my site, and check "Glasses" in green.  Zenni optical has negative lenses for about $20 -- if you wish to conduct low-cost experiments.  Just type in the numbers, and order them.


Best,

Otis
Reply
#19
Yes, more nearsighted than I thought also. Actually it is the astigmatism that is causing the blur at all distances. If I put on the minus 1 glasses now they are not much help for any distance. On the Snellen chart I have 20/80 with them, and really have to squint to read with them at near.
Reply
#20
Dear Bifocal,

There is a "school of thought" that says that that "near" environment, compounded by a minus induces BOTH more myopia AND astigmatism.

I personally support Bates statement about the minus, that when at 20/70, you start wearing an over-prescribed minus -- your Snellen goes rapidly to 20/200.  From the primate studies there is ABSOLUTLY NO SCIENTIFIC DOUBT ABOUT IT.  And this data developed long after Bates was dead.

But the real issue for us 2nd opinion folks, is to show that you can clear your 20/70 vision to 20/40 (or better) by your chosen method.

I think these majority-opinion ODs have "imagination blindness" about these issues, and I think we should keep an open-mind about prevention as Bates suggests.

It took me a long time to verify this "secondary effect" of a minus -- but in my judgment Bates was right.

The only real issue it to avoid that minus -- by always clearing your vision to better-than 20/40 -- and keeping it there.  And it does not matter HOW your do it -- by Bates, plus, or a combination.  It only matters that you are successful.

Best,

Otis
Reply
#21
In my case Bates was right on. When I first became myopic from overuse of minus.5 lenses as therapy to reverse hyperopia. My vision declined to 20/80, and I was given minus 1.00 glasses. After wearing these full time for just a short time ,my vision went to 20/200, although much of the new perscription is minus cylinder for astigmatism.
  I have gotten two additional pair of glasses online. One pair of minus 2.00 which I wear for close work, and a pair of minus 4.00 which I use as much as possible for distance. Neither pair have any astigmatic cylinder, so there is some blur. I am hoping that I can reverse this astigmatism, and then try to reduce the minus lenses to reverse the myopia.
  The one thing that concerns me is that no matter if I wear the minus 2.00, the 4.00, or the astigmatic glasses from the optometrist, if I am reading, or on the computer, I have to be very close to see  ( about 9 inches ). This concerns me that the myopia may increase.
  There are times that I wear the strong astigmatic glasses because they give me such good vision.
Reply
#22
Dear  BiFocal,

I am a "technical" person -- so I tend to "see" problems from a
SLIGHTLY different perspective.  I believe that Bates had
many excellent points -- starting with the refractive STATE
FOLLOWING the applied minus.  The SCIENCE for that
statement is PERFECT.  However, it is always impossible
to translate SCIENTIFIC preception (not medical preception) into
a practical plan-of-action.  In that sense, I agree that their
is a problem with BOTH Bates and plus-prevention. 

My goal was to identify my PERSONAL bad habits as a
7 year-old (nose on the book), and identify the fact that
this must NECESSARILY create a negative refractive STATE
for my natural eyes.  I am convinced of this truth for SCIENTIFIC
resasons.  That means, that had I STARTED wearing the
plus (and other diciplinary measures imposed on me) -- I
would not have a negative refractive STATE today.  If you
have kids, and their Snellen is going below 20/40 (by your
own check) then now is the time to learn about prevention.

To further respond:

In my case Bates was right on. When I first became myopic from overuse of minus.5 lenses as therapy to reverse hyperopia.

Otis> In a basic sense, the natural eye can have a positive refractive STATE or a negative refractive STATE.  Thus you are either myopic or farsighted. (THe problem here is how we define words.)  And yes, word do have TWO MEANINGS.  And that is a big problem.  Most of the arguments swirl around poorly defined words -- in my opinion.  But for this discussion, your eyes can not have BOTH a positive AND negative refractive STATE.  You are either myopic or farsighed.


My vision declined to 20/80, and I was given minus 1.00 glasses.

Otis>  At 20/80, you would fail all DMV tests.  You should have received
a CHOICE, i.e., second-opinion.  Had you started with the plus -- I think you could have cleared your Snellen -- to pass the 20/40 line.  (Yes there is a trade-off here -- depending on you age.)

After wearing these full time for just a short time ,my vision went to 20/200, although much of the new perscription is minus cylinder for astigmatism.

Otis>  I personally think that "astigmatism" is WAY over-done.  But that is a separate subject.  You can have 20/20 and astigmatism of -1 diopter.  But with 20/20 -- why "correct" the astigmatism.  That amount is "natural".


  I have gotten two additional pair of glasses online. One pair of minus 2.00 which I wear for close work, and a pair of minus 4.00 which I use as much as possible for distance.

Otis>  I do not understand why you are doing this.  What is your goal?  To clear your Snellen back to 20/40?


Neither pair have any astigmatic cylinder, so there is some blur. I am hoping that I can reverse this astigmatism, and then try to reduce the minus lenses to reverse the myopia.

Otis>  If you are trying to get back to 20/80 or better -- then why wear the minus?


  The one thing that concerns me is that no matter if I wear the minus 2.00, the 4.00, or the astigmatic glasses from the optometrist, if I am reading, or on the computer, I have to be very close to see  ( about 9 inches ). This concerns me that the myopia may increase.

Otis> Are you wearing a minus when reading or looking at your computer?  If so, why?


  There are times that I wear the strong astigmatic glasses because they give me such good vision.

Otis>  That is true, and natrual.  The real issue is how much astigmatism you have.

Best,

Otis
Reply
#23
Dear Bifocal,

While your title thread was "Farsightedness", it looks like you
were nearsighed.


I have been wearing glasses for 30 years. At first for reading because I would have distance blur after reading.

Otis>  Blur at distance is called "nearsighedness".  A minus lens will "clear" to extreme sharpness -- but it is not a good idea.  Thus is does not seem that you were "farsighed".


The first few pair were small plus, with a small astigmatism correction, didn't seem to help much, so I often wonder if I wasn't slightly nearsighted.

Otis>  It is too bad that the OD did not tell you this -- or explain it too you.  That truly is a professional obligation -- that failed.

Then after about five years I was prescribed bifocals, small plus for distance, and small astigmatism.

Otis>  That is interesting.  Seems like another explanation was in order from your optometrist.


These gave me headaches, but did solve the distance blur after reading.


They got progressively stronger, but I never resigned to wearing them full time.

Otis> Good!  Avoiding glasses is always the better idea -- consistent with PASSING the DMV level test.


About two years ago,I started doing some Bates exercises, and also have tried something on my own.


Obtained a pair of weak -.50 glasses and began wearing them for computer use.

Otis>  I do not understand why you did this.  The essence of Bates is to avoid the minus -- and particularly at "near".  That minus worn in this manner can ONLY make your distant vision worse.


I feel a slight strain at first, but after a short time it passes. When I look into the distance, my vision is better than if I wear my bifocals.Also when I remove these glasses my vision is now about 20/30.

Otis>  That would pass the DMV which is 20/40.


If I do the same computer work, with my bifocals, and remove them, my distance vision is 20/100.

Otis> Then stop wearing the bifocals and work to keep your distant vision at 20/30.


For me wearing weak nearsighted lenses feels relaxing,and I sometimes wear them for distance.

Otis>  I think Bates was correct.  Get rid of the glasses and keep your snellen at 20/30.  That is what Bates said.

Otis
Reply
#24
Hello i found this site a few weeks ago and have found it very interesting. I am a 25yr old male that has farsightedness running through my family. Recently i have started to notice that i constantly have to work to keep things in focus. On my last trip to the optician about 6mths ago i was +0.75 in both eyes, however i never purchased any glasses because i could not see the point. Over the last few weeks i have noticed things getting worse.  I do not want to wear plus lenses because some of the family started the same way and then within a few years ended up wearing really strong plus lenses and not really great vision, and this may sound vain but i do not find strong plus lenses very attractive and do not fancy ending up that way myself. After coming across this post and searching through the net i have decided to try and induce myopia. Now this may sound crazy to many people but i think my logic is right. By trying to induce myopia i am 1 going to hopefully fix my longsightedness and 2 if i become myopic hopefully i will keep longsightedness away. Now as i said before i know this will sound crazy to most people but if i have the choice between being longsighted and shortsighted i would chose shortsighted every time. My aim is to reach around -1 to -2 and then as i progress with age this may come down as my eyes try to become longsighted. I feel that by carrying out this experiment in the longterm it may help some people in the future, experiments like this are carried out with animals but obviously not very often on humans if at all. I have purchased some day and night -3 contact lenses and am going to wear them full time for 3 months and then go for another eyetest, and depending upon the results go from there. But if there was little change i would be willing to wear the lenses longer. Anyway i just thought i would post and hopefully get some advice.
Thankyou for reading one great website, Cheers J.
Reply
#25
Dear J,

You recognize that Bates recommended avoiding the minus.  I agree with him on that point.

I do not know if this will help, but the primate eye IN THE WILD has refractive states running from zero to +2 diopters -- and they are considered to be completely NORMAL. 

I would suggest that you read a (distant) Snellen and verify that you have 20/20 vision -- or close to it.  If that is the case, I would -- as Bates suggested -- wear no lens at all.  Unless you have a specific complaint.
(I am not a doctor -- by the way.)

What you do will obviously depend on your judgment.

Some more commentary:


Hello

i found this site a few weeks ago and have found it very interesting. I am a 25yr old male that has farsightedness running through my family.

Otis> The refractive STATES of midshipmen entering the Naval Academy run between zero to +1.5 diopters -- and are considered NORMAL.  At age 18, a postive refractive STATE of +1 is considered to be of VALUE.

Recently i have started to notice that i constantly have to work to keep things in focus.

Otis> Is that for "distance" or for "near"???


On my last trip to the optician about 6mths ago i was +0.75 in both eyes, however i never purchased any glasses because i could not see the point.

Otis> I agree.  I would check both your "distant" Snellen and "near" Snellen.  A refractive STATE of +3/4 would fall in the normal range.  Also, the refractive STATE of the eye "adapts" to that +3/4 diopter -- and if you wear it 16/7, your refractive STATE will move more positive.  (i.e., stair-case hyperopia.)  In this case -- avoid the "plus" -- at your age.


Over the last few weeks i have noticed things getting worse.  I do not want to wear plus lenses because some of the family started the same way and then within a few years ended up wearing really strong plus lenses and not really great vision,

Otis> The expected development of wearing a plus -- 100 percent of the time.


and this may sound vain but i do not find strong plus lenses very attractive and do not fancy ending up that way myself.

Otis> You are correct -- but have a difficult choice to make.

After coming across this post and searching through the net i have decided to try and induce myopia.

Otis>  If you TRULY wish to do that, or get your refractive STATE to move from +3/4 diopters towards zero -- then, in concept, that is possible.  But that MUST be your choice.  If it were me -- I would just monitor your +3/4 dioper refractive STATE -- unless you have some compelling wish to change it.


Now this may sound crazy to many people but i think my logic is right. By trying to induce myopia i am

1 going to hopefully fix my longsightedness and

Otis> I do not think +3/4 diopter refractive STATE is a problem.  I wonder why you do.


2 if i become myopic hopefully i will keep longsightedness away.

Otis> If you truly wish to change your NORMAL refractive STATE by -3/4 diopters, i.e., from +3/4 to 0.0 -- you could do that.  At you reason, with Snellen passing the DMV or better -- I can see no reason why you should -- except for a PERSONAL experiment.  Before you do ANYTHING I would suggest reading a Snellen -- and verifying your refractive STATE at +3/4 diopters.


Now as i said before i know this will sound crazy to most people but if i have the choice between being longsighted and shortsighted i would chose shortsighted every time.

Otis>  What a rare individual you are.  If I could pass the DMV with 20/40 or better, I would have no problem using a WEAK PLUS for reading -- when necessary.  But that is why these issues are "judgment calls".


My aim is to reach around -1 to -2 and then as i progress with age this may come down as my eyes try to become longsighted.

Otis> Then learn to confirm your refractive STATE yourself. By:

1.  Reading the Snellen.

2.  Use a mild plus to find the lens that "just blurrs" the 20/20 line.
That lens is the measure of your refractive STATE.  Very easy
to do.


I feel that by carrying out this experiment in the longterm it may help some people in the future, experiments like this are carried out with animals but obviously not very often on humans if at all.

[This statement shows that your are far more than a "layman".  Very few of the public have ANY KNOWLEDGE of any of these scientific studies.  You are fare more of an expert with that staement than 99 percent of the laymen on this site. OSB]

Otis> That is correct.  You should obtain some MILD plus to confirm your refractive STATE.  But first verify that your Snellen is 20/20. 

I have purchased some day and night -3 contact lenses and am going to wear them full time for 3 months and then go for another eyetest,

Otis>  Why bother with an OD "eye test" when you can do these measurements yourself.  You are more likely to believe your own measurements -- that you can repeat -- than ANY THIRD-PARTY MEASRUEMENT.  Why pay an OD $100 when you can
make these measurements yourself -- FOR FREE?  Why waste your money???


and depending upon the results go from there.

Otis> Sounds like a poor plan to me.  And a complete waste of
money, when your refractive STATE is completely NORMAL, your
eyes are normal, and you have no identified problem.


But if there was little change i would be willing to wear the lenses longer. Anyway i just thought i would post and hopefully get some advice.

Thankyou for reading one great website, Cheers J.

Otis>  Thanks for your discussion.  You seem to be an expert
in some of these areas.  But if you wish to conduct this
EXPERIMENT on yourself to verify what we already
KNOW about the behavior of the natural eye -- the
please continue.

Otis>  But FIRST confirm you Snellen at 20 feet and post it
here on "imagination blindness".  Then we can go on from
that point.

Otis>  You can get some low-cost "plus" lenses (of 1/2 and 1/4 diopters)
from zennioptical for $20.)  That why you can confirm your refractive STATE of +3/4 diopters. 

Best,

Otis
Reply
#26
J Wrote:Hello i found this site a few weeks ago and have found it very interesting. I am a 25yr old male that has farsightedness running through my family. Recently i have started to notice that i constantly have to work to keep things in focus. On my last trip to the optician about 6mths ago i was +0.75 in both eyes, however i never purchased any glasses because i could not see the point. Over the last few weeks i have noticed things getting worse.  I do not want to wear plus lenses because some of the family started the same way and then within a few years ended up wearing really strong plus lenses and not really great vision, and this may sound vain but i do not find strong plus lenses very attractive and do not fancy ending up that way myself. After coming across this post and searching through the net i have decided to try and induce myopia. Now this may sound crazy to many people but i think my logic is right. By trying to induce myopia i am 1 going to hopefully fix my longsightedness and 2 if i become myopic hopefully i will keep longsightedness away. Now as i said before i know this will sound crazy to most people but if i have the choice between being longsighted and shortsighted i would chose shortsighted every time. My aim is to reach around -1 to -2 and then as i progress with age this may come down as my eyes try to become longsighted. I feel that by carrying out this experiment in the longterm it may help some people in the future, experiments like this are carried out with animals but obviously not very often on humans if at all. I have purchased some day and night -3 contact lenses and am going to wear them full time for 3 months and then go for another eyetest, and depending upon the results go from there. But if there was little change i would be willing to wear the lenses longer. Anyway i just thought i would post and hopefully get some advice.
Thankyou for reading one great website, Cheers J.

Hi J,

Farsighted people do often say that - that it would be easier to be nearsighted. I heard a story about that. A group of people were meeting at a restaurant, all interested in vision improvement and trying to go without glasses. As they were picked up their menus, a farsighted lady said "You know, you nearsighted people have it easy. At least you can read the menu."

A nearsighted lady responded "Well at least you can find the restaurant!"


But really I hope that instead of trying to make yourself nearisghted with minus lenses you'll improve your vision altogether the right way, without forcing them into anything with plus or minus lenses. Or you may find yourself presbyopic (unable to change focus at all without the aid of glasses).

Dave
Site Administrator

"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
Reply
#27
Hello J, What you are trying to do is possible, but I over did it.
            I too never liked the appearance of plus lenses especially on me. And as far as vision thru them. As they get stronger there is an annoying magnification effect, and a reduction in side vision.
            I don't like the idea of wearing glasses at all. And astigmatic correction is very undesirable. But if I have to continue to wear glasses for decent vision, then I too prefer minus lenses as my vision has never been sharp like this with plus,and on me they are more attractive than the plus that i wore. I just hope to get rid of the astigmatism, ond down to a weak minus, or better yet none at all.
Reply
#28
Thankyou guys 3 great opinions. I do not know if what i am doing is the right way to go, however i do know that one day i will be very farsighted and i just dont want that to happen. I know it is sad but i would quite happily wear a minus prescription from this day forward. If the minus lens is addictive then hopefully i would stay slightly myopic for the rest of my days. In my family history once the person reaches around 30 then they become farsighted and then within a couple of years there prescriptions become very strong. I am no expert at all but through what i have researched if i can become slightly myopic then hopefully i can fight off farsightedness. Dave you brought up a great point about becoming presbyopic, now this is a slight worry but i believe age is on my side to stay away from this. I am hopefully going to cheat slightly or experiment in cheating in speeding up the prosess. By wearing the minus lens i am trying to stimulate the oblique muscles in the eye to contract and grow as to lengthen the eyeball. Now as i use the gym regular i also take supplements creotine and glutimine, these are designed to work with muscles that are straining and to build them stronger. Now as my eyes are straining to focus with the -3 lenses in theory the supplements should go straight to the obliques and help them grow to lengthen the eyeball. There is also another technique i am trying to speed up the process and that is called Optokinetic nystagmus but this is a little bit more complicated but known to work. Anyway i am in the very early stages so i will see what happens. Cheers to all J.
Reply
#29
Hello again J,
  An additional comment. I think that you will find the -3.00 too strong. You most likely should start out with -.5, or -1.00. I started to wear them for distance, and then for near work. You would be better off with glasses, because if they begin to get uncomfortable, you can remove them for a while.
  According to some things that I have read. Minus lenses act as a stimulant to the cillary muscle, and the farsighted  muscle is weak, so wearing the glasses stimulate the weak muscle.The reason plus lenses benefit the nearsighted eye is that the muscle is too strong, and using a minus lense will stimulate this already too strong muscle, but a plus will act as a sedative.
Reply
#30
Hi Bifocal
The reason for the -3 is that i am wanting the muscle to grow, so i need to supply constant pressure to the muscle. For what i have researched by removing the lense you are taking away the work that you have done ie 24hrs progress with the lense can be undone in 2hrs without the lenses because the eye returns to its normal position. That is why i wear the night and day lenses, so that the eye can never fully relax so makeing the maximum progress in the shortest space of time. I will only go naked eye once a month when i change the lenses.
Reply

TEST YOUR VISION AT HOME!
- Free Eye Chart PDFs

  • 20 ft, 10 ft, and Near Vision Charts
  • Letters Calibrated to Correct Printed Size
Download Now